Meanwhile, after her early morning scan of the papers, Julie Grant tells us that gun advocates in the our region and elsewhere in upstate New York are targeting lawmakers who support even part of New York’s new gun control law. And at least one Assembly member is fighting back.

Stirpe admitted to using an expletive at least twice, telling the men that if they cared as much about education and the crumbling roads and bridges in New York, as they do about guns, they’d be living in a better state.

Stirpe says some people left after his outburst. But several individuals apologized to him for the way he was treated. Stirpe says he also apologized for his behavior, and posted an apology on his Facebook page.

WOW! I am impressed “more than 40 gun enthusiasts” but less than say 50 (if there were more than 50 the article would have likely been “more than 50 gun enthusiasts”) are intent on voting gun control advocates out of office. What do we have a voting public of 60 to 80 citizens in these districts? It would appear that the dis-pleasure with gun control laws may be more rhetoric than action or there are far fewer in the anti column than the bellicose and the MSM would lead us to believe.

“Stirpe admitted to using an expletive at least twice, telling the men that if they cared as much about education and the crumbling roads and bridges in New York, as they do about guns, they’d be living in a better state.”

Brings to mind the segment of “on Point’ a couple of days ago, with a “gun guy” an eastern Jewish (as he kept describing himself) liberal who was nevertheless a gun enthusiast, and who had gone around the country interviewing other “gun guys”. He made a number of interesting points. Two of them:

1. Among rural males, gun ownership is often considered to be a fundamental component of their personhood, as well as being a constitutional right . Messing with their gun rights is akin to messing with other fundamental rights most sane people hold sacred. (Big surprise,I know, but still). In fact Obama’s “clinging too their guns and religion should be better read “gunsandrelgion”. Religious beliefs, to non-believers, often seem irrational, but are usually (not always) harmless, and these are tolerated . Gun ownership beliefs to non-gun owners, often seem likewise, but these are mostly (if not always) harmless (how many gun crimes committed in our region can you remember, ever?), but considered to be crazy, and despised (as seen by gun guys at least).
(I’m expanding on what the gun guy said, but I think he would agree).

2. (MORE IMPORTANT) He said that that in talking to gun owners, a great many of them held many of the same political and economic beliefs that most Democrats do (e.g., there too much economic inequality, everyone -or at least every person willing to work- should be guaranteed health care and other minimums for a decent life, etc.) but are turned off by the knee jerk ick-factor whenever traditional liberals/Democrats talk about guns.
He said many gun owners are the Democrats natural constituency, were the latter able to be a little less condemnatory toward gun owners (mostly harmless to humans) life styles and beliefs. If Dems were less “icky” about guns, they might pick up a lot of votes, and a few more legislatures, House seats, etc.

Cuomo will pay a price among this group for his knee jerk liberal Dem. forcing of the gun law through. Of course, the majority of (urban) Dems will love him the more for it, but not a good model for gaining, or maintaining, support of the non-urban, gun-owning, “natural constituency.

Cuomo is already paying the price among former supporters who are uncomfortable with his manner and style of governing. Thoughtful people on both sides of the gun issue disapprove of strong-arm tactics in government. When (or if, depending on your position) the Safe Act is struck down, he will have to bear the additional burden of blowing an opportunity to do something constructive.